Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/nonresistanceserOOsper 


NON-RESISTANCE 


>C.V- 


BY 


>/ 


\ A 


WILLARD  L.  SPERRY 


A SERMON  PREACHED  IN  THE 
CENTRAL  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH 
BOSTON,  MASSACHUSETTS 
JANUARY  24,  1915 


THE  PILGRIM  PRESS 

BOSTON  NEW  YORK  CHICAGO 


Copyright  1915 
By  WILLARD  L.  SPERRY 


THE 


PILGRIM 

BOSTON 


PRESS 


Matthew  5: 39 

“Resist  not  him  that  is  evil.” 


vr 


NON-RESISTANCE 

“The  position  taken  by  most  Christians 
that  Jesus  made  it  a rule  to  say  what  he  did 
not  mean,”  says  Ernest  Crosby,  “is  fast 
becoming  untenable.  Common  intellectual 
honesty  before  long  will  have  completely 
undermined  it.  We  must  choose  between 
Christ  plus  his  teachings  on  the  one  hand 
and  an  honest  paganism  on  the  other.  I 
once  read  the  portions  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  which  refer  to  turning  the  other 
cheek  and  giving  up  one’s  cloak  to  my  nine 
year  old  boy  with  the  object  of  getting  his 
opinion.  ‘Oh  what  stuff!’  was  the  only 
comment.  I value  this  answer  as  a frank 
expression  of  judgment.  If  every  Chris- 
tian who,  at  the  bottom  of  his  heart,  believes 
that  these  injunctions  are  stuff,  would  cor- 
dially say  so,  it  would  be  a great  gain  in 
the  cause  of  truthfulness,  whatever  might 
be  the  result  on  the  dogma  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  gospels.” 

[7] 


N on-Resistance 


There  is  probably  no  single  injunction  of 
Jesus’  which  has  so  signally  and  so  consis- 
tently failed  of  fulfilment  as  this  injunction, 
“I  say  unto  you,  Resist  not  him  that  is  evil.” 
Not  only  has  Christendom  failed  to  practise 
the  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  but  it  has  not 
even  thought  seriously  about  it.  A diligent 
search  through  the  catalogue  of  the  Public 
Library  reveals  only  a pathetically  brief 
literature  in  the  interests  of  this  program. 
True,  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  kindred 
sects  like  the  Moravians,  have  been  a con- 
spicuous minority,  bearing  witness  to  this 
doctrine  both  with  their  lips  and  in  their 
lives,  hut  most  of  Christendom  has  regarded 
their  manner  of  life  as  quixotic  and  imprac- 
ticable. Outside  these  sects  only  three  or 
four  voices  in  America  have  been  raised  in 
behalf  of  Jesus’  injunction  not  to  resist  evil 
with  evil.  The  one  voice  which  we  would 
recognize  is  that  of  William  Lloyd  Garri- 
son, who  regarded  the  preaching  of  non- 
resistance  as  his  major  mission,  and  the 
preaching  of  abolition  as  his  minor  mission. 
Because  he  thought  that  Jesus  meant  what 
he  said  upon  this  and  similar  matters  he 


Non-Resistance 


was  branded  by  “The  Independent”  as  an 
“infidel  of  the  most  degraded  class.”  Gar- 
rison founded  here  in  Boston,  in  1838,  a 
little  Society  of  Non-Resistance,  and  later 
published  a brief  monthly  in  the  interests  of 
this  cause.  Both  the  Society  and  the  paper 
languished  and  soon  died.  Garrison  was 
before  his  time.  The  only  other  clear  non- 
sectarian voice  which  has  been  raised  in  the 
modern  world  in  behalf  of  non-resistance  is 
that  of  Tolstoi,  to  whom  our  text  was  the 
very  keystone  of  Christianity,  the  open  ses- 
ame to  the  meaning  of  the  gospels.  Tol- 
stoi’s dramatic  experiment  in  literal  Bible 
Christianity  remains  as  one  of  the  great 
question  marks  writ  after  our  whole  con- 
temporary religion,  one  of  the  real  spiritual 
assets  of  our  time.  Practically  all  Tolstoi’s 
religious  writings  resolve  themselves  into 
fugues  upon  this  one  theme,  you  must  not 
resist  evil  with  evil,  you  must  overcome  evil 
with  good^.  But,  then,  of  course,  Tolstoi 
was  Tolstoi. 

“What  is  going  to  stop  the  war?”  asked 
a friend  the  other  day.  None  of  us  can 
answer  the  question.  Economic  insolvency, 
[9] 


N on-Resistance 


military  exhaustion,  a general  spontaneous 
uprising  of  the  common  people.  These  are 
the  ultimate  possibilities.  No  one  mentions 
religion.  “We  look  to  the  Church  that 
takes  for  its  purposes  the  name  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace,”  says  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells. 
“In  England  except  for  the  smallest,  weak- 
est protest  against  war,  any  sort  of  war,  on 
the  part  of  a handful  of  Quakers,  Chris- 
tianity is  silent.  Its  workers,  for  the  most 
part,  are  busied  in  the  loyal  manufacture  of 
flannel  garments  and  an  inordinate  quan- 
tity of  bed  socks  for  the  wounded.  It  is  an 
extraordinary  thing  to  go  now  and  look  at 
one’s  parish  church,  and  note  the  pulpit  and 
the  orderly  arrangements  for  the  hearers 
and  to  reflect  that  this  is  just  the  local  rep- 
resentative of  a universally  present  organi- 
zation for  the  communication  of  ideas.  That 
all  over  Europe  there  are  such  pulpits,  such 
possibilities  of  gathering  and  saying,  and 
that  it  gathers  nothing  and  has  nothing  to 
say.” 

There  are  a great  many  persons  who  are 
finding  themselves  forced  by  the  logic  of 
events  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Christian 


[10] 


N on-Besistance 


Church  ought  to  be  gathering  people  to- 
gether, now,  and  preaching  to  them  dog- 
matically the  hteral  doctrine  of  non-resis- 
tance. The  forced  moral  option  of  our  time 
is  that  between  “Christ  and  Antichrist.” 
“If  our  choice  is  to  be  Christ,”  writes  a 
thoroughly  unecclesiastical  friend  from 
England,  “then  you  have  got  to  talk  to  us 
about  Christ.  We  moderns  have  forgotten 
him.  Revive  our  memories.  And  give  him 
and  his  teaching  without  compromise.” 

This  is  a fair  challenge  to  all  of  us  who 
pretend  to  be  the  spokesmen  for  the  gospel. 
The  command  to  non-resistance  belongs  to 
that  great  body  of  moral  precept  given  us 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  is,  by 
common  confession,  a counsel  of  perfection. 
The  absolute  moral  ideal  preached  by  Jesus 
constitutes  for  us  all  the  practical  dilemma 
of  our  would-be  discipleship.  Christendom 
has  traditionally  sought  readjustment  to 
the  austere  morality  of  the  original  gospel 
by  underwriting  it  with  some  lower  require- 
ments which  satisfy  the  conventions.  Ca- 
tholicism enjoins  the  “counsels  of  perfec- 
tion” only  upon  the  “religious,”  and  pre- 
[11] 


Non-Resistance 


scribes  for  the  laity  the  less  exacting  “com- 
mandments.” Protestantism  either  admits 
a “half-way  covenant,”  or,  as  in  latter  times, 
“spiritualizes”  the  letter  of  the  gospel. 
Everywhere  there  is  this  “ethical  bi-metal- 
lism,”  by  which  the  original  currency  of  the 
Kingdom  has  been  debased. 

It  seems  more  and  more  obvious  that  this 
process  is  fatal  to  the  moral  significance  and 
moral  power  of  the  person  and  teaching  of 
Jesus.  We  have  been  proceeding  upon  the 
theory  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  a 
program  which,  by  ingenious  exegesis,  can 
be  dovetailed  into  the  world  as  it  now  is. 
Our  supposition  is  false.  Our  effort  has 
failed.  In  altering  the  gospel  to  suit  the 
present  status  we  have  destroyed  its  original 
character.  This  modified  Christianity  is 
the  Christianity  which  now  is  declared 
bankrupt. 

There  never  was  a time  when  it  was  more 
essential  for  us  to  hold  clearly  before  our 
eyes  the  unqualified  moral  ideal  announced 
by  the  gospels.  If  Christianity  is  to  make 
any  contribution  to  our  contemporary  ex- 
tremity, that  contribution  must  follow  upon 
[12] 


Non-Resistance 


a fresh  apprehension  of  the  actual  life 
preached  and  lived  by  Jesus.  That  we  shall 
all  be  rebuked  by  the  discrepancy  between 
the  gospel  and  our  own  circumstance  is 
slight  loss,  compared  to  the  gain  which  will 
accrue  to  us  if  we  win  a fresh  appreciation 
of  pure  Christianity  and  uncompromised. 

The  doctrine  of  non-resistance  is  so  alien 
to  the  conventional  orthodoxies  of  our  he- 
redity and  our  environment,  that  it  calls  for 
explanation.  I quote,  therefore,  the  ques- 
tions and  answers  from  a little  catechism  of 
non-resistance  published  seventy  years  ago 
by  Wilham  Lloyd  Garrison’s  disciples. 

"'Q,  Whence  originated  the  term  ‘non- 
resistance’  ? 

From  the  injunction.  Resist  not 
evil,  Matthew  v:  39. 

Is  the  word  resistance  to  be  taken 
in  its  widest  meaning,  that  is,  as  showing 
that  no  resistance  whatever  is  to  be  shown 
to  evil? 

''A,  No,  it  is  to  be  taken  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  Saviour’s  injunction;  that  is, 
we  are  not  to  retaliate  evil  with  evil.  Evil 

[13] 


Non-Resistance 

is  to  be  resisted  by  all  just  means,  but  never 
with  evil. 

May  a man  kill  or  maim  another  in 
self  defense? 

No. 

''Q,  May  he  fight  with  an  army  against 
enemies  or  against  domestic  rebels? 

'"A,  Of  course  not.  He  cannot  take 
part  in  any  war  or  warlike  preparations. 
He  cannot  use  death-dealing  arms.  He 
cannot  resist  injury  with  injury,  no  matter 
whether  he  be  alone  or  with  others,  through 
himself  or  through  others. 

In  what  does  the  chief  significance 
of  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance  consist? 

^^A,  In  that  it  alone  makes  it  possible 
to  tear  the  evil  out  by  the  root,  both  out  of 
one’s  own  heart  and  out  of  the  neighbor’s 
heart.  The  doctrine  forbids  doing  that  by 
which  evil  is  perpetuated  and  multiplied. 
To  offend  another  because  he  offended  us 
means  to  repeat  an  evil  deed.  Satan  cannot 
be  driven  out  by  Satan,  evil  cannot  be  van- 
quished by  evil.  True  non-resistance  is  the 
one  true  resistance  to  evil. 


[14] 


Non-Resistance 


''Q.  But  if  the  idea  of  the  doctrine  is 
right  is  it  practicable? 

'"A,  It  is  as  practicable  as  any  good 
prescribed  by  the  Law  of  God.  The  good 
cannot  under  all  circumstances  be  executed 
without  self  renunciation,  privation,  suffer- 
ing, and  in  extreme  cases,  the  loss  of  life 
itself.  But  it  is  incomparably  safer  to  act 
justly  than  unjustly — it  is  safer  even  in 
relation  to  the  present  life.” 

This,  then,  is  the  Christian  attitude  of 
non-resistance.  It  is  not  something  weak 
and  cowardly,  not  a craven  acquiescence  in 
evil.  It  is  not  simply  lying  down  and  letting 
the  evil  walk  over  you.  It  is  standing  up  on 
your  feet  and  facing  evil  with  good.  It  is 
a marching  unarmed  up  to  the  muzzles  of 
the  guns.  Let  us  have  done  with  the  idea 
that  a non-resister  is  a coward.  He  is  the 
only  man  who  can  understand  the  Bible 
saying  that  “perfect  love  casteth  out  fear.” 
Garrison  was  a non-resister,  but  it  was 
Garrison  who  said,  “I  am  in  earnest.  I 
will  not  equivocate;  I will  not  excuse;  I 
will  not  retreat  a single  inch,  and  I will 
be  heard.”  Non-resistance  is  the  fearless 
[15] 


N on-Resistance 

assertion  of  justice  and  love,  in  the  face  of 
wrong. 

This  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  the  over- 
coming of  evil  with  good,  is  precisely  as  rea- 
sonable as  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness,  no 
more,  no  less.  For  both  non-resistance  and 
forgiveness  are  expressions  of  the  determi- 
nation to  ignore  evil  in  an  offender  because 
of  the  latent  good  in  him.  When  we  for- 
give a man  we  treat  the  evil  that  he  has  done 
as  though  it  did  not  exist.  We  try  to  con- 
vince him  of  his  unrealized  and  better  self. 
And  non-resistance  differs  from  forgiveness 
only  in  its  direction.  For  while  forgiveness 
is  an  act  of  retrospect,  non-resistance  is  an 
act  of  anticipation.  In  forgiving  a man  we 
ignore  the  fact  that  he  has  done  evil,  in 
non-resistance  we  ignore  the  fact  that  he 
proposes  to  do  evil.  If  non-resistance  is  un- 
justifiable and  impracticable,  then  forgive- 
ness is  also  unjustifiable  and  impracticable, 
for  they  are  one  and  the  same  thing. 

The  field  for  the  preaching  of  non-resist- 
ance as  the  only  ultimate  and  adequate  solu- 
tion of  the  problems  raised  by  aggressive 
evil  in  the  world  is  open  and  unoccupied. 

[15] 


Non-Resistance 


No  statesman,  no  socialist,  no  economist  as 
such,  advocates  this  program.  It  is  pecu- 
liarly a Christian  policy.  If  the  witness  of 
the  Church  is  not  raised  in  its  behalf,  then 
it  will  fail  of  a hearing.  But  if  we,  who  are 
of  '‘The  Way,”  have  faith  enough  to  preach 
this  doctrine  of  non-resistance  with  convic- 
tion we  shall  find  a world  ready  to  listen. 
Alike  in  religious  and  secular  circles  men 
are  open  to  conviction  as  never  before  upon 
the  practicability  as  well  as  the  righteous- 
ness of  this  dogma.  The  signs  of  the  times 
are  significant.  There  is,  for  example,  a 
whimsical  fancy  by  Ray  Stannard  Baker  in 
one  of  the  current  magazines  which  de- 
scribes the  ultimate  invasion  of  America  by 
the  military  conquerors  of  Europe.  Amer- 
ica meanwhile  has  become  converted  to  non- 
resistance,  has  demolished  her  coast  de- 
fences, has  disbanded  her  army  and  militia, 
has  scrapped  her  battleships,  and  fortified 
herself  only  with  international  good  will. 
The  invaders  are  met  while  yet  at  sea  by  a 
reception  committee  tendering  the  hospital- 
ity and  freedom  of  the  country.  They  land 
on  Long  Island  and  instantly  dig  them- 
[ir] 


N on-Resistance 


selves  into  trenches  and  wait,  and  nothing 
happens.  No  defenders  appear.  They  send 
a peremptory  demand  for  the  surrender  of 
New  York  City.  They  receive  in  return  a 
cordial  invitation  to  come  right  along  and 
try  their  hand  at  governing  New  York, 
which  under  Tammany  Rule  has  not  been 
at  all  as  creditable  a municipality  as  any 
one  of  the  great  European  cities.  And  then 
the  invasion  collapses  and  War  is  forever 
exorcised  from  the  world  by  one  spontane- 
ous burst  of  international  laughter.  Be- 
neath the  genial  satire  there  is  the  serious 
truth  of  a newly  apprehended  idea.  This 
article  would  not  have  been  possible  a year 
ago. 

And  then  there  is  the  favorite  and  fami- 
liar question  for  contemporary  casuistry. 
What  would  have  happened  if  the  Belgians 
and  French  had  not  resisted  violence  with 
violence.  What  if  they  had  simply  laid  down 
their  arms,  unitedly,  and  taken  their  stand 
in  the  highways  and  said,  we  refuse  to  re- 
cognize the  anticipated  evil,  we  see  only  the 
common  good  of  all  the  peoples  of  Europe. 
We  stand  in  the  way  of  your  advance  to 
[18] 


Non-Resistance 


remind  you  of  human  values,  not  of  military 
necessity.  The  minister  of  the  French  con- 
gregation which  meets  in  our  chapel  on 
Sunday  afternoons  is  a native  Belgian,  and 
it  is  his  great  regret  that  his  people  were 
not  organized  for  this  effort,  even  though  it 
had  meant  national  martyrdom  instead  of 
international  war. 

Then  I have  a British  friend  who  wishes 
that  the  Church  of  England  had  been  or- 
ganized for  non-resistance  as  the  State  was 
organized  for  war.  That  the  Church  of 
England  had  had  her  companies  and  regi- 
ments of  communicants,  her  transport  and 
commissary  departments  ready  for  the 
emergency,  so  that  in  the  critical  hour  she 
could  have  marched  five  hundred  thousand, 
a million  Christians,  into  the  face  of  her 
foes,  singing  the  hymns  of  the  Church  uni- 
versal, and  chanting  the  creed  of  the  King- 
dom of  God  upon  earth.  He  says  there  is 
no  government  in  the  world  that  would 
assume  the  terrible  responsibility  or  risk  the 
moral  odium  of  butchering  such  an  army 
for  the  sake  of  its  policies  of  aggression. 

Well,  then  there  was  that  congressman 

[19] 


N on-Resistance 


who  suggested,  as  a serious  measure,  that 
Congress  should  vote  the  demanded  appro- 
priation for  increased  armaments  and  then 
should  turn  over  the  whole  appropriation 
to  relief  work  in  Europe.  What  nation,  he 
asked,  not  without  good  reason,  would  at- 
tack another  nation  that  had  voluntarily 
laid  off  its  armor  to  assume  a ministry  of 
brotherly  charity? 

Now  all  these  whimsicalities  and  visions 
are  significant  net  in  themselves,  but  as 
signs  of  the  times.  The  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance  when  thus  stated  captivates  the 
imagination.  It  commands  respect  and  en- 
thusiasm. It  appeals  to  us  not  only  as 
ideal,  but  as  more  practicable  than  we  had 
ever  dreamed.  We  begin  really  to  believe 
that  '‘The  man  who  will  not  strike  back  is 
the  only  man  who  cannot  be  conquered,  and 
the  treatment  of  him  becomes  an  insoluble 
problem  for  the  tyrant.  It  is  the  non-re- 
sistant alone  who  can  overcome  superior 
power.” 

There  are  two  obvious  objections  to  the 
doctrine  of  non-resistance  that  will  always 
be  urged. 


[20] 


N on-Resistance 


The  first  is  an  objection  which  bulks 
large  with  many  of  us.  That  however 
plausible  non-resistance  may  seem,  it  is  in 
the  last  analysis  unnatural,  and  therefore 
cannot  and  ought  not  to  be  put  into  prac- 
tice. It  is  man’s  nature  to  fight,  the  strug- 
gle for  existence  is  the  law  of  his  life.  This 
faith  is  deep  rooted,  not  only  in  Nietzsche 
and  Treitschke  and  Bernhardi,  but  in  us  all, 
in  so  far  as  we  comprehend  the  facts  of  the 
evolutionary  process.  Non-resistance  finds 
no  sanction  in  evolution.  How  then  can  we 
square  it  with  this  major  article  of  our  mod- 
ern creed?  This  is  the  problem  which  we 
all  see  so  clearly  now;  the  problem  which 
Huxley  saw  and  faced  and  answered 
twenty-five  years  ago  in  his  Romanes  Lec- 
ture, one  of  the  really  classic  utterances  of 
the  last  century,  that  might  well  be  circu- 
lated now  as  a tract  for  the  times.  “Man 
and  society,”  he  says,  “are  undoubtedly  sub- 
ject to  the  cosmic  process.  The  struggle 
for  existence  tends  to  eliminate  those  less 
fitted  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  circum- 
stances of  their  existence.  The  strongest 
and  most  self  assertive  tend  to  tread  down 


[21] 


N on-Resistance 


the  weaker.  But  social  progress  means  a 
checking  of  the  cosmic  process  at  every  step 
and  the  substitution  for  it  of  another,  which 
may  be  called  the  ethical  process;  the  end 
of  which  is  not  the  survival  of  those  who 
may  happen  to  be  the  fittest,  but  of  those 
who  are  ethically  the  best.  The  practice  of 
that  which  is  ethically  best — what  we  call 
goodness  or  virtue — involves  a course  of 
conduct,  which  in  all  respects  is  opposed  to 
that  which  leads  to  success  in  the  struggle 
for  existence.  In  place  of  ruthless  self 
assertion,  it  demands  self-restraint;  in  place 
of  thrusting  aside  or  treading  down  all  com- 
petitors, it  requires  that  the  individual  shall 
not  merely  respect  but  help  his  fellows.  Its 
influence  is  directed  not  so  much  to  the  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest  as  to  the  fitting  of  as 
many  as  possible  to  service.  It  repudiates 
the  gladiatorial  theory  of  existence.  Let  us 
understand  once  for  all  that  the  ethical 
progress  of  society  depends  not  on  imitating 
the  cosmic  process,  still  less  in  running  away 
from  it,  but  in  combating  it.”  It  would  be 
a strange  reversal  of  affairs  if  now,  in  civi- 
lization’s extremity,  Huxley  were  found  to 
[22] 


Non-Resistance 


be  the  real  Christian  and  we  church  people 
were  to  be  found  the  heretics,  because  he 
went  on  record  in  behalf  of  the  gospel  vir- 
tues as  against  the  natural  instincts,  while 
we  bow  in  helpless  acquiescence  to  what  we 
call  the  law  of  our  natures. 

And  the  second  objection  to  the  doctrine 
of  non-resistance  is  that  it  is  impracticable. 
It  may  be  impracticable  as  society  is  imme- 
diately organized.  But  who  of  us  holds  any 
brief  for  the  present  order,  who  is  a blind 
devotee  of  the  “god-of-things-as-they-are”  ? 
The  worship  of  existing  institutions,  in  the 
political  and  economic  world,  is  the  idolatry 
from  which  we  pray  to  be  delivered.  For 
the  man  to  whom  the  competitive  processes 
of  contemporary  society  are  the  gospel  as 
well  as  the  law,  non-resistance  is  impracti- 
cable. But  most  of  us  look  for  a new  earth. 
We  realize  that  men  must  be  “converted” 
to  non-resistance  as  to  all  the  other  charac- 
teristic Christian  dogmas,  that  Christianity 
itself  is  a revolutionary  program,  a trans- 
valuation of  all  values. 

Perhaps  we  shall  have  to  make  private 
and  humble  experiments  in  non-resistance 
[28] 


N on-Besistance 


before  we  can  be  convinced  that  it  is  thor- 
oughly practicable.  We  must  have  a few 
personal  victories  in  this  matter  of  overcom- 
ing evil  with  good  before  we  can  understand 
the  homely  wisdom  of  this  seeming  folly. 
The  history  of  individual  experiments  in 
non-resistance  is  tremendously  significant. 
Stanley  made  it  work  in  Africa.  John  G. 
Paton  made  it  work  in  the  New  Hebrides. 
Thomas  Mott  Osborne  is  making  it  work  in 
Sing  Sing.  The  history  of  community  ex- 
periments in  non-resistance  is  not  less  sig- 
nificant. The  conquest  and  occupation  of 
America  was  achieved  only  after  many 
costly  collisions  with  the  Indians.  But  for 
seventy  years,  until  they  were  outvoted  in 
their  legislature,  the  Society  of  Friends  in 
Pennsylvania  lived  in  absolute  peace  and 
security.  When  Maryland,  Virginia,  New 
York  and  New  England  were  being  visited 
with  massacre  upon  massacre,  the  Quakers 
of  Pennsylvania  went  scot  free.  So  long  as 
they  practised  non-resistance  they  never  lost 
a single  settler  at  the  hands  of  the  natives. 
‘‘Their  security  and  quiet,”  says  one  of  the 
Society’s  historians,  “was  not  a transient 

[24] 


N on-Remtance 


freedom  from  war.  Having  determined 
not  to  fight,  the  Pennsylvanians  maintained 
no  soldiers  and  possessed  no  arms.  There- 
fore, they  became  armed  without  arms;  they 
became  strong  without  strength;  they  be- 
came safe  without  the  ordinary  means  of 
safety.” 

If  it  be  objected  that  non-resistance 
might  work  with  simple  and  primitive  foes, 
but  not  with  sophisticated  soldiers  of  the 
modern  world,  listen  to  two  extraordinary 
quotations  from  a large  number  of  just  such 
letters  from  the  front,  published  in  the 
weekly  London  “Times”  for  January  8. 
The  first  is  from  a Belgian  soldier.  “ Christ- 
mas Day  in  the  trenches ! It  must  have  been 
sad,  you  say.  Well  I am  not  sorry  to  have 
spent  it  there,  and  the  recollection  of  it  will 
ever  be  one  of  imperishable  beauty.  At 
midnight  a baritone  stood  up  and  sang, 
‘’Tis  midnight,  Christian!’  The  cannonade 
ceased,  and  when  the  hymn  finished  ap- 
plause broke  out  from  our  side  and  from  the 
German  trenches.  The  Germans  too  were 
celebrating  Christmas  two  himdred  yards 
away  from  us.  Now  I am  going  to  tell  you 


N on-Resistance 


something  that  you  will  think  incredible,  but 
I give  you  my  word  that  it  is  true.  At 
dawn  the  Germans  displayed  a placard  over 
the  trenches  on  which  was  written  ‘Happy 
Christmas!’  and  then  leaving  their  trenches 
they  advanced  towards  us  singing  and 
shouting,  ‘Comrades!’  No  one  fired.  We 
also  left  our  trenches.  They  asked  us  to 
spend  Christmas  Day  without  firing  and  the 
whole  day  passed  without  any  fighting. 
Was  it  not  splendid?  Think  you  that  we 
were  wrong?  We  have  been  criticised  here; 
it  is  said  that  we  ought  to  have  fired.  But 
would  it  not  have  been  dastardly?”  And 
the  other  letter  is  from  an  officer  of  a High- 
land regiment.  “You  need  not  have  pitied 
us  on  Christmas  Day.  We  were  in  the 
trenches  and  the  Germans  began  to  make 
merry  on  Christmas  Eve  shouting  at  us  to 
come  out  and  meet  them.  I was  horrified 
at  discovering  that  some  of  our  men  had 
gone  out;  they  met  half  way  and  they  ar- 
ranged (the  private  soldiers  of  one  army 
and  the  private  soldiers  of  the  other  army) 
a forty-eight  hours’  armistice.  It  was  all 
most  irregular.  All  the  night  the  enemy 
[26] 


Non-Resistance 


sang,  and  during  my  watch  they  played 
‘Home  sweet  home’  and  ‘God  save  the  king’ 
at  half  past  two  in  the  morning.  It  was 
really  rather  wonderful.  Christmas  Day 
out  came  those  Germans  to  wish  us  a 
Happy  Day.  So  here  you  are,  all  this  talk 
of  hate  and  fury  at  each  other  that  has 
raged  since  the  beginning  of  the  war, 
quelled  and  stayed  by  the  magic  of  Christ- 
mas. Indeed  as  one  of  the  Germans  said, 
‘But  you  are  of  the  same  religion  as  us,  and 
to-day  is  the  Day  of  Peace.’  It  is  really 
a great  triumph  for  the  Church.  It  is  great 
hope  for  future  peace  when  two  nations, 
hating  each  other  as  foes  have  seldom  hated, 
should  on  Christmas  Day,  and  for  all  that 
the  word  implies,  lay  down  their  arms  and 
wish  each  other  happiness.” 

Non-resistance  will  work,  it  will  work  in 
our  private  relationships  far  oftener  than 
any  of  us  suppose.  It  will  also  work  in 
our  public  activities  far  more  generally  than 
we  have  ever  dreamed.  And  if,  sometimes, 
like  all  human  ventures  it  fails  of  its  end, 
even  its  failure  is  a victory.  The  signal  and 
classic  example  of  the  failure  of  the  doctrine 

[27] 


Non-Resistance 


of  non-resistance,  as  a worldly  expedient,  is 
the  death  of  Jesus.  They  killed  him  in  spite 
of  his  non-resistance.  But  this  signal  fail- 
ure of  the  doctrine  is  by  common  human 
confession  the  greatest  spiritual  triumph 
that  the  world  has  ever  known.  Socrates, 
Savonarola,  Nathan  Hale,  John  Brown  of 
Ossawotomie,  these  martyrs  were  also  vic- 
tors in  their  latter  end,  but  there  is  no  moral 
victory  in  all  history  like  that  of  Jesus  on  his 
cross.  You  do  not  need  any  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  to  sense  this  fact,  you  need  not 
even  be  one  of  his  disciples  to  appreciate  the 
positive  spiritual  glory  of  that  death.  He 
who  above  all  others  overcame  the  world, 
refused  and  rebuked  the  sword  that  was 
drawn  in  his  behalf  and  died  in  non-resis- 
tance. And  the  most  universal  religious 
symbol  which  the  world  knows  is  that  sym- 
bol of  his  non-resistance,  the  cross. 

We  are  dealing,  after  all,  in  the  doctrine 
of  non-resistance  not  with  the  calculating 
counsels  of  selfish  expedience,  but  with  per- 
manent values.  Whether  non-resistance 
works  or  whether  it  fails  to  work  as  a means 
to  immediate  safety,  it  is  in  either  event  a 
J28J 


Non-Resistance 


positive  spiritual  victory  over  the  evil  that 
is  in  the  world.  “If  only  one  man  acted 
thus,”  said  the  makers  of  the  New  England 
catechism  of  non-resistance,  “and  all  the 
others  agreed  to  crucify  him,  would  it  not 
be  more  glorious  for  him  to  die  in  the  tri- 
umph of  non-resisting  love,  praying  for  his 
enemies,  than  to  live  wearing  the  crown  of 
Csesar  bespattered  with  the  blood  of  the 
slain?” 


[29] 


f) 

PHOTOMOUNT 

I pamphlet  binder 

PAT.  NO. 
877188 

I Manufactured  by 

GAYLORD  BROS.  Ine. 
I Syracuse,  N.  Y. 


Stockton,  Calif. 


tnifftLl 


JX1959  .S75 

Non-resistance:  A sermon  preached  in 


1 1012  00060  8960 


